A resolution requesting information on El Salvador's human rights practices pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Mr. President, the nominees I will discuss today were approved by the Armed Services Committee with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats agreed they are qualified and ready to serve. President Trump was elected in a landslide, and the American people expect and deserve our support in getting his agenda accomplished.

President Trump and his administration are working incredibly hard to bring back the U.S. policy of peace through strength and to ensure our military is a respected and lethal fighting force. This is not an easy task after President Biden's weakness allowed our enemies free rein while our military leadership was distracted with being woke.

President Trump needs his full team in place to deliver on his agenda to restore our Nation's military to focus on the warfighter.

To that end, I ask that we move to consider the following nominees: First, I will ask we consider Dale Marks to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Marks is a former fighter pilot and combat-wounded veteran. After his distinguished military career, he continued service in a civilian capacity, where he rose through the ranks of Senior Executive Service. He is currently serving as Executive Director of the 96th Test Wing, Air Force Materiel Command at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The position he is nominated for is essential to ensure our military installations remain strong, our energy policies support mission success, and our environmental strategies enhance, not hinder, operational readiness and support peace through strength.

I urge the Democrats to drop their misplaced stall tactics and allow for his immediate confirmation.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 109, Dale Marks, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am not sure I understand my colleague's objections. These are well-qualified nominees. They enjoy bipartisan support. There are several more nominees waiting. It is obvious, my colleagues across the aisle will do everything they can to undermine President Trump's agenda and delay these nominees.

Next, I would like to consider Keith Bass to be Assistant Secretary of Defense. Mr. Bass is a retired U.S. Navy commander. He is also a member of the American College of Healthcare Executives, the National Rehabilitation Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors.

Prior to nomination, Mr. Bass served as the Medical Center Director for the West Texas VA Health Care System. The role Mr. Bass has been nominated to oversee is a Military Health System that has 9.6 million beneficiaries entitled to care. The military health system is currently undergoing many reforms to improve efficiency, increase readiness, and deliver better care. I urge my colleagues to allow for his immediate confirmation.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 70, Keith Bass, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, the President deserves his national security nominees today. Let me see if we will consider this one: Brandon Williams to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Military Health System.

Mr. Williams is a nuclear submarine officer. During his service, he made six strategic deterrence patrols, was a nuclear weapons safety officer, nuclear weapons security officer, and nuclear weapons radiological control officer. He is pretty competent.

This role is responsible for the maintenance of a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile.

Confirmation is critical to President Trump's ``peace through strength and strategic deterrence'' agenda. Hopefully, my colleague will see the wisdom in allowing this confirmation--this individual who is clearly qualified to be confirmed today.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 107, Brandon Williams, to be Under Secretary for Nuclear Security; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, one final ask. I hope my colleagues can agree that we have at least one critical nominee today approved.

Let's consider Bradley Hansell to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security.

Mr. Hansell is a former Green Beret, Senior Director on the National Security Council staff, and has previously received bipartisan support. He will be responsible to exercise the Secretary of Defense's authority, direction, and control over the DIA, NGA, NSA, NRO, and the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. His confirmation is critical to the President's ``peace through strength'' agenda.

I, once again, urge my colleague to allow for the nominee's immediate confirmation.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 108, Bradley Hansell, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

At some point, this has got to change. We have Presidential elections every 4 years. Our President got elected. President Trump got elected, whether people like it or not. He deserves an opportunity to put his team together and act as the President and put his agenda in place.

This idea that both parties sit here and delay nominees and the ability to put teams together doesn't make any sense for the future of this country. This is not a time that there is no risk in the world, and so, at some point, we are going to all have to come together to start accelerating this. We have so many nominees. Whether it is a Republican or a Democrat President, we have got to allow these nominees to get through and get confirmed in a much more expedited manner. Otherwise,

none of our Presidents are ever going to get in a position that they can ever put a team together during their 4-year term.

Let's remember what we just did today. This is not the confirmation of the Secretary of Defense. These are the confirmations of very competent people. No one can question the competence of these four people. No one can. All right? These are competent people who have served our country and who do a great job. So what we are doing is we are saying: Because some people don't like our Secretary of Defense, we are not going to allow the President to put a team together of very competent people.

So what we are doing is, now we just have acting people whom none of us get to vote on and none of us get to question until they come to committee. None of this makes any sense. It is not helping us put together a team and holding people accountable.

Reserving the right to object, I appreciate my colleague from Florida asking for a competent team of professionals at the Department of Defense. We all want the Department of Defense to be managed efficiently and effectively. It is vital to our national security.

What we have right now is chaos, literally, confusion, turmoil, and turbulence, in part, because we have a Department of Defense that is unaccountable.

Last Congress, I led a bicameral letter to then-Secretary Austin demanding answers after a GAO report found significant failures in barracks' facilities across the country. Billions of dollars have been poured into installations for housing and infrastructure improvements. Again, those investments are being undercut by the mass layoffs we see right now at the Department of Defense.

We expect Mr. Marks to manage the entirety of these installations and environmental programs at DOD, but the administration, in effect, is undercutting at every turn.

This Secretary of Defense has created that chaos. He has shredded the Department's report on climate change, despite its outlining the serious implications it will have on the military in coming decades. I wonder whether the Secretary has actually visited Guam or Alaska and seen the effects of climate change in either place. I wonder whether he understands the equipment, the electronics, the ammunition that are required and that themselves require special storage and resilient infrastructure if we expect them to perform in combat effectively.

As climate change creates a more challenging environment for our warfighters, the DOD should be leading the charge in research and adaptability.

I feel especially strongly that the DOD, in firing its scientists and throwing research in the trash, is betraying the values and principles that the Secretary ought to be fighting to uphold.

Mr. Marks would be responsible for all of it. Yet the Secretary hasn't the slightest idea of what he is doing in these areas. We questioned him for more than 4 hours during his hearing at the Armed Services Committee; that is, the Secretary. We all knew that he was the least qualified Secretary of Defense in our history. And 4 months later, sadly, unfortunately, we can say, confidently, we were right.

What he is doing is slashing personnel, the experts, the scientists. He is the reason I stand here and say that we cannot accept Mr. Marks' shortcutting the proper process that provides for debate on all these issues, and therefore I object.

Reserving the right to object, I, once again, agree with my colleague from Florida that we worked together in a bipartisan way for years now, and I appreciate his leadership on the C Power Subcommittee where we share a number of interests.

I fear that the chaos at the Department of Defense, due to the slashing of positions, the confusion caused by ideological interventions that are harmful, reckless, and unnecessary, that those kinds of downsizing and defects in leadership will hurt the military families and, particularly, their access to healthcare.

TRICARE provides for the well-being of our servicemembers, their families, and loved ones.

Mr. Bass has a long service record, but this administration is undercutting his potential work, and we deserve to debate it on the floor of the Senate without unanimous consent, without shortcutting public accountability.

The administration now in charge of the Department of Defense should be held accountable for exactly the healthcare interests that Mr. Bass will have responsibility for advancing. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, on this one, I think the stakes are particularly high. At the Department of Energy, the DOGE-Musk cuts led to hundreds of employees being fired. They were responsible for overseeing our nuclear weapons stockpile. That set of moves caused a massive counterintelligence disaster and a logistical train wreck. After realizing these employees were indispensable, the Agency begged for them to come back.

Billions of dollars have been poured into this program, and what we have seen now is the whirlwind, the confusion, and chaos caused by this mismanagement. We need full accountability. We need more facts, which we have been denied.

Our Armed Services Committee, along with other committees, should be looking into what the consequences were of those DOGE slashing-and- trashing steps that put our Nation in jeopardy. We are not going to have it if we proceed to this nomination with unanimous consent, shortcutting public debate. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I wish I could agree to the unanimous consent on this nominee.

As my colleague from Florida obviously understands, the issues here are bigger than any one of these nominees. The issues are more consequential than the career or advancement of any single member of the Department of Defense team. This Secretary seems more concerned with his own public image than the safety of our servicemembers because he has violated basic security protocols.

We are talking here about an official who will be responsible for securing our national intelligence. When this Secretary, in effect, has jeopardized them through actions that are currently under investigation, how is the person responsible for the Office of Intelligence and Security at the Department of Defense supposed to do their job when they face the most serious counterintelligence threat in recent memory from within the Department of Defense? Elon Musk's firings put thousands of highly qualified people out of a job. Many of them possessed security clearances and knowledge of their Departments' most sensitive programs. Their service is vital to our national security. Thousands were fired without cause. Our adversaries couldn't be happier, and they may be profiting from those mistakes right now.

These cuts come at a time when we are prioritizing--we in the U.S. Senate--funding to expand our nuclear triad and to counter China's growing nuclear capabilities. These workforce reductions undermine our goals across the board in the Department of Defense. We need to provide personnel for program oversight, supply chain management, cyber security, and other critical functions. So I think we need accountability, and we need the facts. They haven't been forthcoming.

I object.

What I hear from the other side is, essentially, ``Give the President whatever he wants in the name of his having the prerogative.'' He should name his own team, but we have a responsibility. It is a constitutional obligation. ``Advice and consent'' is more than just saying: Give him his own team. If we had been responsible in this body--if my Republican colleagues had stood up and spoken out as they should have done--we would have a different Secretary of Defense right now. It would have been unnecessary for the Vice President to come here and break a tie. We would have a more competent Secretary of Defense. That is the mindset that got us where we are today, and that is the reason I have lodged these objections.

Mr. President, I move to discharge S. Res. 195 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. Res. 195, which is a vote on a motion to discharge that will be the next pending vote in the Senate.

It is actually a pretty simple bill about very basic concepts: Do you believe in the Constitution or not? Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Do you believe in due process or not? Do you believe that final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court should be respected or not? Those are the questions at issue on S. Res. 195.

Our President, President Trump, has entered into an agreement still shrouded in some secrecy with the President of El Salvador, President Bukele, to deport American residents into El Salvador and imprison them in prisons in a country that has been charged by the United States and others with gross human rights violations.

The Congress that is in charge of appropriating taxpayer dollars should want to know the circumstances of this imprisonment and whether U.S. law is being followed. The $6 million payment to the El Salvadoran prison likely violates human rights law in accord with many experts who looked at the details as they emerged, and that is where we begin. These are dollars that Congress has appropriated, but the precise mechanism for the transfer of these moneys and the President's authority to both spend the money and carry out the deportations is questionable.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of one of these individuals who it admits was deported by mistake--and there are many others similarly situated--is defying an order of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a nine-to-nothing ruling that the administration should facilitate the return of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Thus far, nearly a month later, that has not occurred.

This is about fighting lawlessness. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, to which we all pledge fealty, is pretty straightforward:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property

without due process of law.

That was the clause that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously interpreted to mandate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia.

The President was asked recently whether he had an obligation to uphold the Constitution, which he swore an oath to in the witness of all of us on Inauguration Day. He was asked if he had to uphold the Constitution. Just within the last week, he said he did not know. We know the answer to that question, but the President does not. The particular country to which these American residents have been deported, El Salvador--this now goes back a year--has a track record of imprisoning individuals--innocent individuals. The last thing any of us should want is an innocent individual in prison, especially if that innocent individual is an American.

But this is the punch line: The President has indicated that this is not just for those who are here with questions about their legal status. President Trump has said ``homegrowns'' are next. Trump doubles down on sending American criminals to foreign prisons. We have a prison system in the United States--local jails, State prisons, Federal prisons. The notion of sending American citizens to foreign prisons without scrutiny is truly shocking, and that is the reason that I filed the resolution.

What is this resolution?

It is a privileged motion--available to any Senator--directing the administration to produce a human rights report about a nation--in this case, El Salvador. S. Res. 195 directs the Secretary of State to produce a report to this body that would be available not only to us but to the American public about the human rights record in El Salvador, and a couple of the clauses of the resolution, I think, are specific about this particular case.

The report should contain information about the treatment of citizens or residents of other countries, including the United States--non- Salvadorans--who are being detained or imprisoned in El Salvador, including any opportunity provided to such citizens or residents to demonstrate that they are being wrongfully detained or imprisoned.

We should all want to know whether Americans detained in El Salvador have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are wrongfully imprisoned. The report will require that.

The report would require an assessment from the Secretary of State of the conditions in El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, including an assessment of allegations of torture and other gross violations of human rights.

Remember again that the Trump administration has acknowledged that at least one of the individuals who was deported was deported mistakenly. He has been in prison for some time. If he is not there now, he was for some time in CECOT. We should want to know whether Americans in prison there are subject to torture or to other gross violations of human rights.

The report should include a description of any actions that the U.S. Government has taken to ensure that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador releases U.S. citizens being detained or imprisoned in El Salvador in compliance with U.S. court orders regarding their return.

Finally, the report would require information--a description of actions--the U.S. Government is taking to provide due process in compliance with U.S. law for relevant persons detained or imprisoned in El Salvador.

Why would anyone in this body, in understanding this record--the forceable deportation of American residents, some admittedly deported by mistake and whom the Supreme Court has ordered returned into El Salvadoran prisons--why would anyone in this body not want to get a human rights report about the conditions of that confinement, particularly given the fact that President Trump has indicated that he may intend next to send U.S. citizens into those same prisons?

This information will be very relevant to important decisions that we take in our relationship with El Salvador and also in our decisions we take with respect to the Appropriations Act. So I urge my colleagues to vote for S. Res. 195.

Mr. President, I will conclude prior to the vote just by saying this is a very basic resolution.

Everyone in this body, knowing that Americans have been deported without due process to a prison in a foreign country that has a grievous record of human rights abuses, should at least want to get information about the circumstances of that confinement, about whether that prison is according American residents any semblance of due process and whether the United States is undertaking efforts to ensure that that country and that prison are following final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you support the rule of law, if you support due process, if you support the Constitution, if you support human rights, if you support final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court, you will support S. Res. 195.

I now ask for the vote.

Vote on S. Res. 195

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend and colleague Senator Kaine for his longtime leadership and support of human rights and the rule of law. It is an honor to team up with him in introducing this resolution.

As he indicated, this is designed to expose the truth about a scheme that is threatening the constitutional rights of everybody who lives in the United

States of America. As we speak, President Trump is paying American taxpayer dollars to the Government of El Salvador, which has been a notorious violator of human rights. He is paying them American taxpayer dollars to lock up American residents without due process of law. The Constitution is clear in the 5th Amendment and, by application to the States, the 14th Amendment, but the 5th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees due process.

As Senator Kaine indicated, when President Trump was recently asked whether he had to comply with the Constitution of the United States, despite the fact that he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office right down the hall here not that long ago, the President's response was:

I don't know.

That should concern every single Member of the U.S. Senate, regardless of party.

The principle of not depriving somebody of their liberty without the due process of law is a fundamental core American value. That is why it is in the Constitution of the United States. This is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is not an issue that belongs to any one party. This is a fundamental American issue in the Constitution of the United States.

I know that Donald Trump wants to continue to change the subject when it comes to this matter, but the subject could not be more clear, and that is to protect the constitutional rights of people who reside in the United States.

One person who was caught up in this unconstitutional scheme was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is a constituent of mine in Maryland, as are his wife Jennifer and their children.

Federal agents illegally abducted Kilmar Abrego Garcia while he was driving with his 5-year-old son, who has autism. They took him to Baltimore, then Texas, and then they shackled him and handcuffed him and put him on a plane. He didn't know where he was going. The next thing he knows, he ends up in El Salvador at this notorious prison called CECOT, which is the gulag of Latin America.

The Trump administration admitted in a Federal court that they had wrongfully detained Mr. Abrego Garcia. They admitted it. They said it was an ``administrative error'' that landed him in CECOT. But what did they do? Instead of fixing that egregious error, they fired the lawyer who told the truth to the court. That is what they did.

Since then, they have been ignoring the orders of the district court, the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a 9- to-0 decision--we don't see many of those--ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia in accordance with his right to due process. If President Trump can ignore the courts, that is a very short road to tyranny.

I have made very clear from the start that I am not vouching for the man, Mr. Abrego Garcia; I am vouching for his rights because if you deny his rights, you put in jeopardy the rights of everybody who resides in the United States of America.

So that is why I did travel to El Salvador, both to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia to find out whether he was dead or alive and report back to his family but also to ask the Government of El Salvador to stop being complicit in this scheme with President Trump to deny residents of the United States their constitutional rights.

When I met with the Vice President of El Salvador, my worst fears were reinforced.

I asked the Vice President of El Salvador: Why are you holding Mr. Abrego Garcia? Do you have any criminal complaint against him?

No. No, not at all.

Why?

Because the U.S. Government, the Trump administration, is paying us to do so. That is why.

I ultimately got to see Mr. Abrego Garcia--at first, I was stonewalled by the Government of El Salvador--and he has been totally unable to contact anybody in the outside world before I met with him and since. He is not only in a total news blackout, but nobody can call him--not his lawyers, not his wife, not his mother, not his brother. That is a violation of international law, and that is one of the hallmarks of this El Salvadoran gulag, is people go into CECOT or these other prisons and you never hear from them again.

The State Department's 2023 human rights report on El Salvador--the most recent one we have--reported ``credible reports'' of ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading torture'' in El Salvadoran prisons, including beatings with batons and rifles, overcrowding, underfeeding, and life- threatening medical neglect; reports that guards fire stun guns on wet floors to deliver electric shock to the entire cell at once. That is where we are sending people like Abrego Garcia without any due process of law, and that is why it is so important that we adopt this resolution, which Senator Kaine has so well described.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to stand back and think of the moment we are in because not only did the President of the United States say he wasn't sure if he had to comply with the Constitution of the United States, which should set off alarm bells all over the country, regardless of party, but Steve Miller, one of his top policy advisers, publicly talked about suspending habeas corpus, suspending the Constitution of the United States. That is a very dangerous idea, and all of us--all of us, regardless of party--should stand up to protect the Constitution, protect due process, and make it clear that the President of the United States cannot ignore a nine-to-nothing Supreme Court order, which he is doing as we speak, because if he can do it with one person or do it to two people, he can do it to anybody in the United States of America, and that is un-American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the call to feed the world has been answered by many Kansans, from farmers and ranchers to Senator Bob Dole and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. American farmers are linked to global markets and, by extension, to the well-being of people everywhere.

Two of our Nation's most successful programs for delivering American- grown food to the hungry around the

world are Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, both rooted in my State of Kansas.

At the recommendation of a Kansas farmer way out in Northwest Kansas, Kansas Senator Andrew Schoeppel introduced the Food for Peace Act in the Senate to purchase commodity surpluses to feed the hungry around the world. It was signed into law by another Kansan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1954. Later, Senator Dole became the key champion of its reauthorization. Since its creation, Food for Peace has reached more than 4 billion people in more than 150 countries using American-grown commodities.

Another food aid program, the McGovern-Dole Program, was established in 2002 through the farm bill. It originated from the partnership between Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. Since the beginning, McGovern-Dole has delivered more than 5.5 billion school meals to children around the globe.

The mission of these programs is more urgent now than ever. In 2023, more than 735 million people around the world faced chronic hunger. That is 1 out of every 10 people on the planet. Food security also contributes to our national security. When governments cannot feed their own people, chaos and violence often follow. Food assistance provided by the United States leads to greater stability in regions of the world important to America's strategic interests.

Hunger can drive children to join militias or nations to descend into chaos, opening up an opportunity for adversaries to step in and coerce a country for natural resources or military capabilities.

Hunger fuels desperation, and desperation fuels unrest. In the Sahel region of Africa, violent extremism is on the rise. Terrorist groups exploit food insecurity to win recruits and enforce loyalty. Programs like Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole break that cycle.

In Lebanon, where economic collapse has shredded the supply chain, Food for Peace delivered over 100,000 metric tons of wheat last year. In fiscal year 2023, McGovern-Dole provided school meals to more than 2.5 million children in developing countries like Bangladesh, where families fled ethnic cleansing and rely upon rations to survive.

Through these programs, Kansas wheat, Arkansas rice, and Iowa soybeans are feeding the hungry around the world who are facing famine, war, and national instability.

Food for Peace also provides a critical market for our producers. This is an issue that matters to Kansas farmers and farmers around the country. It allows them to sell nearly $2 billion worth of excess commodities every year, so farmers don't have to let the crops go to waste and shoulder the losses.

For years, Food for Peace has been hampered by bureaucratic delays, mismanagement, and abuse within USAID. The inefficiency of USAID hasn't just wasted taxpayer dollars; it has weakened the reach and effectiveness of some of our most vital humanitarian aid programs.

Thanks to its extensive infrastructure and hands-on experience in both domestic and international operations, the USDA is uniquely positioned to manage Food for Peace. In February, I introduced a bill with my colleague from Kansas Senator Marshall and our colleague from North Dakota Senator Hoeven and Representative Tracey Mann--the occupier of the seat in the First District of Kansas--in Congress to move Food for Peace out of USAID and under the Department of Agriculture in an effort to prevent waste and bring the program closer to the farmers who depend upon it.

Right now, USDA runs two highly successful foreign assistance programs and already handles all domestic commodity purchases for Food for Peace Title II.

Most importantly, USDA has the trust of American farmers. They know the Agency. They understand their work, and it can deliver results. I am grateful that USDA Secretary Rollins has expressed a willingness to take on this program and for their commitment to preserving and strengthening the program's mission.

By placing Food for Peace under USDA's authority, we make certain the program can continue to bring revenue to American agriculture producers.

In fiscal year 2023, Food for Peace purchased $713 million worth of U.S.-grown commodities and McGovern Dole purchased another $33 million--both direct investments into rural communities across Kansas and the country.

I cochair the Hunger Caucus in the Senate. I cochaired the Hunger Caucus in the House. I took on that responsibility to try to make a difference. I have seen the differences these programs can make around the world, and I support their continuance, even if it needs to be in a new form.

I often tell farmers in Kansas: Farming is a noble profession. Feeding people is a worthwhile cause, and God gave you a purpose. God gave you, a farmer, a purpose for your life.

It was Kansas farmers who came up with the idea for Food for Peace as a moral and commonsense solution to prevent excess American food from going to waste and using it to feed the hungry across the globe.

For 70 years, the United States of America has made the difference between life and death for millions of people around the world and has made circumstances better for farmers here at home.

I yield the floor.